<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (2) TMI 428 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338728</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, reinstated the claim for refund, and emphasized the need for responsible tax administration. The decision clarified that the limitation under section 11B should be enforced with reference to the date of the order granting relief, rather than the date of payment, to ensure fairness and equity in refund processes arising from appellate resolutions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 23:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458165" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 428 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338728</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, reinstated the claim for refund, and emphasized the need for responsible tax administration. The decision clarified that the limitation under section 11B should be enforced with reference to the date of the order granting relief, rather than the date of payment, to ensure fairness and equity in refund processes arising from appellate resolutions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338728</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>